The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd v Cowling & Anor

The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd v Cowling & Anor

The Deputy Master was not plainly wrong in his assessment that the claim was more likely than not to succeed but not highly likely to succeed, and thus security for costs was properly ordered. The Claimant failed to demonstrate that an order for security would stifle the claim or that it had made sufficient efforts to secure funds from shareholders or directors. The amount and form of security were within the Master's discretion.

Parties
Claimant: The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd; 1st Defendant: Mr Cowling; 2nd Defendant: Mr Lawrence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Company Litigation, Impecuniosity, Fiduciary Duties, Breach of Duty, Partnership Law
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Company Litigation Impecuniosity Fiduciary Duties Breach of Duty Partnership Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Company Ltd

Claimant

Mr Cowling

1st Defendant

Mr Lawrence

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master erred in granting security for costs against the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the merits of the Claimant's case were such as to preclude an order for security for costs
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's impecuniosity was caused by the Defendants' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master was not plainly wrong in his assessment that the claim was more likely than not to succeed but not highly likely to succeed, and thus security for costs was properly ordered. The Claimant failed to demonstrate that an order for security would stifle the claim or that it had made sufficient efforts to secure funds from shareholders or directors. The amount and form of security were within the Master's discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order for security for costs in the sum of £240,000 stands
  • Liberty to apply as to timing and form of security